![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dangermousieWarning: this is likely to be a very unpopular opinion. But seriously, I kept thinking it and finally had to come out with it.
(This is about the recently passed bill which would prohibit retaliation against medical personnel who refuse to provide abortion).
No, the sky is not falling.
Seriously.
This is just codifying something which is de facto law already.
Before I get to this, one separate point though:
You know, most medical professionals do not sign on to do abortions, or even on the chance that they might have to. You know why? Because the only people who perform them are either professionals working at abortion clinics or (in some rare event, such as an emergency), an E.R. doctor. This does not affect the vast majority of doctors, nurses, technicians or anyone else. Chances of a podiatrist or a midwife or a physical therapist conducting or assisting in an abortion? Next to none.
So yes, ER doctors (and assistants) and abortion clinics people.
Guess what, you can't force someone to perform a service. There is a provision against involuntary servitude based on 13th amendment which has been invoked in a whole slew of situations, from school children having to clean schools to chain gangs. What it means? You cannot force a doctor, a nurse, or that person who boils the metal instruments to perform a function they do not want to do.
"Yes, but before you could fire them and that would scare them into doing abortions!"
Not really. Most abortions are performed in clinics like Planned Parenthood, right? Well, I don't think anyone who is not a-Ok with abortions would apply to work there, but let's say somebody did and got hired. PP might not be able to fire them because they refused to do abortions on moral grounds, but they can certainly fire them for either falsifying an important fact on their application (I would imagine any sane org that does a controversial procedure would ask about the applicant's willingness to engage in it) or because they cannot perform the duties of their position which consist of abortions. An example is the law that prohibits gender discrimination in employment, but there are a series of cases that say that e.g. a strip club or even Hooters can hire only busty ladies because being a busty lady is a qualification of the job. Just as you are not supposed to discriminate against the handicapped but if the person's being handycapped interferes with the duties of the job, then you can certainly only insist on hiring able-bodied workers.
E.R. is obviously a more mixed case because the personnel's job descriptions include more than performing/assisting abortions (though I still think it's a good argument in that case as well. You are not penalizing them for their beliefs, you are transferring them for insufficient performance). But leaving aside that practically speaking you can find more than one doctor/nurse/cloth-holder in the hospital, I would imagine vast majority of abortions performed in ERs are emergency procedures to save life of the mother or what not. Even a lot of people who are anti-abortion are OK with that, but even leaving that aside, somebody who is willing to let a person die because aborting is against their moral beliefs would not be deterred by a prospect of firing, realistically speaking. Not to mention that from what I know of ER docs, religious right is hardly a thriving group among them.
So basically, storm in a teacup. Good way for conservative politicians to score points with their consituents without doing anything meaningful.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I am pro-choice. Yes, I find forcing people into doing actions that go against their moral beliefs distasteful).
(This is about the recently passed bill which would prohibit retaliation against medical personnel who refuse to provide abortion).
No, the sky is not falling.
Seriously.
This is just codifying something which is de facto law already.
Before I get to this, one separate point though:
You know, most medical professionals do not sign on to do abortions, or even on the chance that they might have to. You know why? Because the only people who perform them are either professionals working at abortion clinics or (in some rare event, such as an emergency), an E.R. doctor. This does not affect the vast majority of doctors, nurses, technicians or anyone else. Chances of a podiatrist or a midwife or a physical therapist conducting or assisting in an abortion? Next to none.
So yes, ER doctors (and assistants) and abortion clinics people.
Guess what, you can't force someone to perform a service. There is a provision against involuntary servitude based on 13th amendment which has been invoked in a whole slew of situations, from school children having to clean schools to chain gangs. What it means? You cannot force a doctor, a nurse, or that person who boils the metal instruments to perform a function they do not want to do.
"Yes, but before you could fire them and that would scare them into doing abortions!"
Not really. Most abortions are performed in clinics like Planned Parenthood, right? Well, I don't think anyone who is not a-Ok with abortions would apply to work there, but let's say somebody did and got hired. PP might not be able to fire them because they refused to do abortions on moral grounds, but they can certainly fire them for either falsifying an important fact on their application (I would imagine any sane org that does a controversial procedure would ask about the applicant's willingness to engage in it) or because they cannot perform the duties of their position which consist of abortions. An example is the law that prohibits gender discrimination in employment, but there are a series of cases that say that e.g. a strip club or even Hooters can hire only busty ladies because being a busty lady is a qualification of the job. Just as you are not supposed to discriminate against the handicapped but if the person's being handycapped interferes with the duties of the job, then you can certainly only insist on hiring able-bodied workers.
E.R. is obviously a more mixed case because the personnel's job descriptions include more than performing/assisting abortions (though I still think it's a good argument in that case as well. You are not penalizing them for their beliefs, you are transferring them for insufficient performance). But leaving aside that practically speaking you can find more than one doctor/nurse/cloth-holder in the hospital, I would imagine vast majority of abortions performed in ERs are emergency procedures to save life of the mother or what not. Even a lot of people who are anti-abortion are OK with that, but even leaving that aside, somebody who is willing to let a person die because aborting is against their moral beliefs would not be deterred by a prospect of firing, realistically speaking. Not to mention that from what I know of ER docs, religious right is hardly a thriving group among them.
So basically, storm in a teacup. Good way for conservative politicians to score points with their consituents without doing anything meaningful.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I am pro-choice. Yes, I find forcing people into doing actions that go against their moral beliefs distasteful).
